The Austrian Economics Wiki - User contributions [en]

Category talk:Argumentation

2011-02-02T19:12:42Z

84.60.254.77: /* Parsing argumentation */

{{TOC right}}
==Parsing argumentation==
We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see:

*Articles related to argumentation in itself
*Articles giving arguments for and against positions in a controversy
*Articles on historical and future debates
*An article on a particular country's political system

To me, only the first one really fits within this category, but the second could fit as well, if defined. I like the idea of [[Argumentation:ABCT]], but less so [[Criticism of fractional reserve banking]]. And the last two types especially don't seem to belong.

Other thoughts? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Hopefully the structure issue is now resolved. So what should go in this category? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (CST)
:Still thinking about this, but: Maybe there is a need for a super-category, perhaps ''Argumentation'' itself. Below that might be sub-categories, i.e., some of the things you have listed:
: * '''Historical debates''': Actual finite historical debates that were in "real-time" at some point in the past but are not continuing, whether or not there was agreement (e.g., the [[Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858]]);
: * '''Current debates''': Ongoing debates or arguments happening in the contemporary time frame;
: * '''Pros & cons''': Mere listings of pros & cons on a specific, narrow topic, with or without commentary or conclusions by the editor/author;
: * '''Theory''': Argumentation in the theoretical sense, as [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe|Prof. Hoppe]] uses it to justify [[libertarianism]] (for that, see [[Argumentation ethics]]);
:and so forth. But that's as far as I've gotten. Forgot, I admit I don't grasp how a country's political system fits here. -- [[User:RayBirks|RayBirks]] 23:55, 27 January 2011 (CST)

: For the record, I made the category for Number 2 option - the Pros & cons - but it grew a little out of control. Blame me for bad descriptions. :)
: Now, what should be in it? I really consider the Number 2 most important for the wiki, so I'd put those articles under the main category. Number 1 could in principle belong to it, or the subcategory "Argumentation Theory" can be used. For number 3 I definitively second a subcategory (although I'd focus on historical debates here, contemporary stuff would be either an Event or Argumentation, since the discussion is raging right now). As for number 4... well, the idea was to create an argumentative article about the frequently celebrated social state in Scandinavia and didn't quite work out that way. Change is in order, will try to find a more suitable category. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 09:16, 28 January 2011 (CST)
::I've created the category [[:Category:Scandinavia|Scandinavia]] to house what seems the most offending article. It could use another category, for what the article was supposed to show, but I can't seem to find a good one right now. (Maybe 'Popular Misconceptions'?) With that out of the way, how can we consolidate this category? [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 11:38, 2 February 2011 (CST)
::: Sometimes it is a good rule to destroy anything you don't understand. If the category is only to have an editorial link to it, then use it with any better title, for example [[:Category:Journalistic topic]]. Btw. [[:Category:Issues]] is also doubtful. --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.254.77|84.60.254.77]] 13:12, 2 February 2011 (CST)

==Category hierarchy==
: Why are you ruling me by reverts and witless comments (''rv; use existing categories rather than nonexistent ones, and if anything fits in Category:Argumentation, it's this''), when you have no solution, and when you are clear that "Argumentation (cat)" doesn't mean "Argumentation (ethics concept)"? --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
: Second issue: "Argumentation ethic" is a concept but not an economic concept unless all concepts are economic concepts. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::[[:Category:Concepts]] does not exist. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]]. There is no inconsistency, and putting articles in categories that do not exist is not helpful.
::Before claiming that others are "ruling you," consider that you might be wrong, and that the opinion of others (like the creator of this category and others who have added to it) merits consideration as well. --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::: Do you know who is wrong? Of course, [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]] when it is written as articles. What's the point? When a Category is missing, one should create it. Clear the sense of existing pages before. In the meantime I will use it as wiki, as it is. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:01, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::Excellent. This is indeed a wiki, which is why I can revert edits that are unhelpful (like adding articles to nonexistent categories) and you can perform edits that are helpful (like creating new categories for which you perceive a need). Are you now going to fix the structure, so this category is part of [[:Category:Concepts]], and put [[Argumentation ethics]] back in [[:Category:Argumentation]]? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 09:14, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::: I don't fall into quibbling. The ready progress is helpful. You are reverting the progress on the way. And I am not aware what should be wrong about [[:Category:Argumentation]], as it is described, aside from the point that the name is unhappily choosen. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:39, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Does anyone think that the article [[Argumentation ethics]] is now categorized well [http://wiki.mises.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Argumentation_ethics&diff=6822&oldid=6819],
i.e. in the same cat. with "Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state"? Was that intentional?
It seems to me that there is no plan to organize even the main categories. It should be distinguished between
* known encyclopedic concepts (which can be found like lexicon entries) and
* arbitrary article topics (which can't be found like lexicon entries and need another help to find them)
"Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state" are arbitrary article topics. It is difficult to have a useful opinion about their ultimate categories but they shouldn't be mixed with the encyclopedic concepts.
[[Argumentation ethics]] is a known concept and has to do with logic, praxeology, natural order, ethics and so on. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is something for arbitrary article topics, something for a journalist. Is that controversial? --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.254.77|84.60.254.77]] 08:34, 2 February 2011 (CST)

Category talk:Argumentation

2011-02-02T18:48:08Z

84.60.254.77: /* Parsing argumentation */

{{TOC right}}
==Parsing argumentation==
We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see:

*Articles related to argumentation in itself
*Articles giving arguments for and against positions in a controversy
*Articles on historical and future debates
*An article on a particular country's political system

To me, only the first one really fits within this category, but the second could fit as well, if defined. I like the idea of [[Argumentation:ABCT]], but less so [[Criticism of fractional reserve banking]]. And the last two types especially don't seem to belong.

Other thoughts? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Hopefully the structure issue is now resolved. So what should go in this category? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (CST)
:Still thinking about this, but: Maybe there is a need for a super-category, perhaps ''Argumentation'' itself. Below that might be sub-categories, i.e., some of the things you have listed:
: * '''Historical debates''': Actual finite historical debates that were in "real-time" at some point in the past but are not continuing, whether or not there was agreement (e.g., the [[Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858]]);
: * '''Current debates''': Ongoing debates or arguments happening in the contemporary time frame;
: * '''Pros & cons''': Mere listings of pros & cons on a specific, narrow topic, with or without commentary or conclusions by the editor/author;
: * '''Theory''': Argumentation in the theoretical sense, as [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe|Prof. Hoppe]] uses it to justify [[libertarianism]] (for that, see [[Argumentation ethics]]);
:and so forth. But that's as far as I've gotten. Forgot, I admit I don't grasp how a country's political system fits here. -- [[User:RayBirks|RayBirks]] 23:55, 27 January 2011 (CST)

: For the record, I made the category for Number 2 option - the Pros & cons - but it grew a little out of control. Blame me for bad descriptions. :)
: Now, what should be in it? I really consider the Number 2 most important for the wiki, so I'd put those articles under the main category. Number 1 could in principle belong to it, or the subcategory "Argumentation Theory" can be used. For number 3 I definitively second a subcategory (although I'd focus on historical debates here, contemporary stuff would be either an Event or Argumentation, since the discussion is raging right now). As for number 4... well, the idea was to create an argumentative article about the frequently celebrated social state in Scandinavia and didn't quite work out that way. Change is in order, will try to find a more suitable category. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 09:16, 28 January 2011 (CST)
::I've created the category [[:Category:Scandinavia|Scandinavia]] to house what seems the most offending article. It could use another category, for what the article was supposed to show, but I can't seem to find a good one right now. (Maybe 'Popular Misconceptions'?) With that out of the way, how can we consolidate this category? [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 11:38, 2 February 2011 (CST)

==Category hierarchy==
: Why are you ruling me by reverts and witless comments (''rv; use existing categories rather than nonexistent ones, and if anything fits in Category:Argumentation, it's this''), when you have no solution, and when you are clear that "Argumentation (cat)" doesn't mean "Argumentation (ethics concept)"? --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
: Second issue: "Argumentation ethic" is a concept but not an economic concept unless all concepts are economic concepts. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::[[:Category:Concepts]] does not exist. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]]. There is no inconsistency, and putting articles in categories that do not exist is not helpful.
::Before claiming that others are "ruling you," consider that you might be wrong, and that the opinion of others (like the creator of this category and others who have added to it) merits consideration as well. --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::: Do you know who is wrong? Of course, [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]] when it is written as articles. What's the point? When a Category is missing, one should create it. Clear the sense of existing pages before. In the meantime I will use it as wiki, as it is. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:01, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::Excellent. This is indeed a wiki, which is why I can revert edits that are unhelpful (like adding articles to nonexistent categories) and you can perform edits that are helpful (like creating new categories for which you perceive a need). Are you now going to fix the structure, so this category is part of [[:Category:Concepts]], and put [[Argumentation ethics]] back in [[:Category:Argumentation]]? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 09:14, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::: I don't fall into quibbling. The ready progress is helpful. You are reverting the progress on the way. And I am not aware what should be wrong about [[:Category:Argumentation]], as it is described, aside from the point that the name is unhappily choosen. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:39, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Does anyone think that the article [[Argumentation ethics]] is now categorized well [http://wiki.mises.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Argumentation_ethics&diff=6822&oldid=6819],
i.e. in the same cat. with "Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state"? Was that intentional?
It seems to me that there is no plan to organize even the main categories. It should be distinguished between
* known encyclopedic concepts (which can be found like lexicon entries) and
* arbitrary article topics (which can't be found like lexicon entries and need another help to find them)
"Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state" are arbitrary article topics. It is difficult to have a useful opinion about their ultimate categories but they shouldn't be mixed with the encyclopedic concepts.
[[Argumentation ethics]] is a known concept and has to do with logic, praxeology, natural order, ethics and so on. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is something for arbitrary article topics, something for a journalist. Is that controversial? --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.254.77|84.60.254.77]] 08:34, 2 February 2011 (CST)

Category talk:Argumentation

2011-02-02T14:34:10Z

84.60.254.77:

{{TOC right}}
==Parsing argumentation==
We need to think about what this category is meant to include. Right now I see:

*Articles related to argumentation in itself
*Articles giving arguments for and against positions in a controversy
*Articles on historical and future debates
*An article on a particular country's political system

To me, only the first one really fits within this category, but the second could fit as well, if defined. I like the idea of [[Argumentation:ABCT]], but less so [[Criticism of fractional reserve banking]]. And the last two types especially don't seem to belong.

Other thoughts? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:00, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Hopefully the structure issue is now resolved. So what should go in this category? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 10:17, 27 January 2011 (CST)
:Still thinking about this, but: Maybe there is a need for a super-category, perhaps ''Argumentation'' itself. Below that might be sub-categories, i.e., some of the things you have listed:
: * '''Historical debates''': Actual finite historical debates that were in "real-time" at some point in the past but are not continuing, whether or not there was agreement (e.g., the [[Lincoln–Douglas debates of 1858]]);
: * '''Current debates''': Ongoing debates or arguments happening in the contemporary time frame;
: * '''Pros & cons''': Mere listings of pros & cons on a specific, narrow topic, with or without commentary or conclusions by the editor/author;
: * '''Theory''': Argumentation in the theoretical sense, as [[Hans-Hermann Hoppe|Prof. Hoppe]] uses it to justify [[libertarianism]] (for that, see [[Argumentation ethics]]);
:and so forth. But that's as far as I've gotten. Forgot, I admit I don't grasp how a country's political system fits here. -- [[User:RayBirks|RayBirks]] 23:55, 27 January 2011 (CST)

: For the record, I made the category for Number 2 option - the Pros & cons - but it grew a little out of control. Blame me for bad descriptions. :)
: Now, what should be in it? I really consider the Number 2 most important for the wiki, so I'd put those articles under the main category. Number 1 could in principle belong to it, or the subcategory "Argumentation Theory" can be used. For number 3 I definitively second a subcategory (although I'd focus on historical debates here, contemporary stuff would be either an Event or Argumentation, since the discussion is raging right now). As for number 4... well, the idea was to create an argumentative article about the frequently celebrated social state in Scandinavia and didn't quite work out that way. Change is in order, will try to find a more suitable category. [[User:Pestergaines|Pestergaines]] 09:16, 28 January 2011 (CST)

==Category hierarchy==
: Why are you ruling me by reverts and witless comments (''rv; use existing categories rather than nonexistent ones, and if anything fits in Category:Argumentation, it's this''), when you have no solution, and when you are clear that "Argumentation (cat)" doesn't mean "Argumentation (ethics concept)"? --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
: Second issue: "Argumentation ethic" is a concept but not an economic concept unless all concepts are economic concepts. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 08:40, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::[[:Category:Concepts]] does not exist. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]]. There is no inconsistency, and putting articles in categories that do not exist is not helpful.
::Before claiming that others are "ruling you," consider that you might be wrong, and that the opinion of others (like the creator of this category and others who have added to it) merits consideration as well. --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 08:51, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::: Do you know who is wrong? Of course, [[:Category:Argumentation]] is in [[:Category:Articles]] when it is written as articles. What's the point? When a Category is missing, one should create it. Clear the sense of existing pages before. In the meantime I will use it as wiki, as it is. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:01, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::Excellent. This is indeed a wiki, which is why I can revert edits that are unhelpful (like adding articles to nonexistent categories) and you can perform edits that are helpful (like creating new categories for which you perceive a need). Are you now going to fix the structure, so this category is part of [[:Category:Concepts]], and put [[Argumentation ethics]] back in [[:Category:Argumentation]]? --[[User:Forgottenman|Forgottenman]] ([[User talk:Forgottenman|talk]]) 09:14, 27 January 2011 (CST)
::::: I don't fall into quibbling. The ready progress is helpful. You are reverting the progress on the way. And I am not aware what should be wrong about [[:Category:Argumentation]], as it is described, aside from the point that the name is unhappily choosen. --[[User:Reserved|Reserved]] 09:39, 27 January 2011 (CST)

Does anyone think that the article [[Argumentation ethics]] is now categorized well [http://wiki.mises.org/mediawiki/index.php?title=Argumentation_ethics&diff=6822&oldid=6819],
i.e. in the same cat. with "Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state"? Was that intentional?
It seems to me that there is no plan to organize even the main categories. It should be distinguished between
* known encyclopedic concepts (which can be found like lexicon entries) and
* arbitrary article topics (which can't be found like lexicon entries and need another help to find them)
"Murphy/Krugman debatte", "For and against paper money", or "Scandinavia and the social state" are arbitrary article topics. It is difficult to have a useful opinion about their ultimate categories but they shouldn't be mixed with the encyclopedic concepts.
[[Argumentation ethics]] is a known concept and has to do with logic, praxeology, natural order, ethics and so on. [[:Category:Argumentation]] is something for arbitrary article topics, something for a journalist. Is that controversial? --[[Special:Contributions/84.60.254.77|84.60.254.77]] 08:34, 2 February 2011 (CST)